What is Africa? What is Malawi?
What is Africa? What is Malawi?
The more you get to know a place and the intricate details that make it what it is, the more clearly the inconsistencies and the biases jump out when presented through the media. Media is becoming an ever increasing debated part of our lives. There’s a lot of noise to sift through. And not only as media consumers but as media producers we are always exchanging information and must strive to be intellectually honest and fair. But not only honest and fair because we can be both these things in our opinion yet still portray biases, half-truths and half-stories to our audience because maybe we simply don’t know more. (See: The Danger of a Single Story)
I can go ahead and accuse myself of some terrible past blog posts, articles and photos shared. I’m in a continual state of learning myself to understand how to better portray my daily life, experiences and passions without making over generalizations, assumptions or stereotypes about someone else’s life. It’s not always easy to do in a single photo or sentence. Especially with places as complex as an entire continent with 54 countries present known as Africa. Nor is it easy in a country as diverse as Malawi.
The problem sometimes of speaking about Africa itself is we tend to generalize an entire continent (of which Malawi is one country) of thousands of languages and religious beliefs and cultures into one homogenous place. I haven’t explored as much of the continent as I would like but I learned very quickly when first arriving in Malawi that it was somehow similar and yet somehow drastically different from the country I had previously visited (Kenya). And the difference was felt almost immediately upon landing at the airport.
I understand why we say Africa. There does seem to be a type of heartbeat, song, vibrancy that connects across the continent. Yes, you will find similarities across this continent in the same way you will find similarities across North America, South America, Asia and Europe. And yet you will find just as many if not more differences across Africa but somehow it gets generalized more. I’m not saying we cannot talk about the African continent as Africa. After all, we have the African Union, African Development Bank, and many other cross-continental institutions that bring the continent together and speak about it as a whole. But that’s part of the point. Unless we are speaking about the continent as a whole, recognizing that when we do use the word Africa we are talking about over 50 different autonomous nations, we need to be more sensitive to the individual country with it’s own economy, history, political system and cultures. So what is Africa? It's vast and wide from Morocco, Egypt, Libya and Algeria to Tanzania, Zambia, Kenya and Botswana and all are just as much "African."
So we will continue to try and use our language better. Are we talking about specific countries or a network across a continent in our descriptions? And once we are within a single country, are we giving a full or half sided view to it's complexity? And maybe we do need to focus on problems sometimes to solve them- but let's acknowledge we are only looking at one angle. By being more specific, we will help avoid placing negative stereotypes upon an entire continent full of around 1.2 billion different people and it's individual countries. "Poor kids in Africa" is far too general a statement and does not adequately answer the question of, "What is Africa?" Instead it leads to stereotypes that an entire continent (or country) is poor, full of orphans, unable to care for itself. This is not true. I also understand the diversity of the continent itself might lead to people loving it as a whole. The range of languages, culture, color and history could also draw someone to be interested in all the different countries as one continent. It’s not about abandoning the word Africa but by understanding more and being more aware of what we mean when we say it. To not generalize poverty to a land mass three times the size of the USA. To really get to the heart of the question of, "What is Africa?" It can never be just one thing. And maybe the meaning changes over time. As Professor Mpalive-Hangson Msiska so eloquently put it, "meaning is not static." What we know as Africa today or Malawi today may not be the meaning we should attach to them in the future.
When we look to professional journalism, one would think the points listed above about avoiding over-generalizations would be well-known, studied and understood. And yet maybe as an outsider (including myself) we can never quite fully understand and therefore, we make mistakes. We generalize, misunderstand, misquote, misinterpret and sometimes insert desperately incorrect or racist assumptions into our reporting. We exaggerate in order to raise awareness about what may indeed be a problem but does the exaggeration actually help or hurt the situation? So here’s just a few examples of when the African and specifically Malawian narrative were not well written. That fell into stereotypes of what we many times associate Africa to be.
The more you get to know a place and the intricate details that make it what it is, the more clearly the inconsistencies and the biases jump out when presented through the media. Media is becoming an ever increasing debated part of our lives. There’s a lot of noise to sift through. And not only as media consumers but as media producers we are always exchanging information and must strive to be intellectually honest and fair. But not only honest and fair because we can be both these things in our opinion yet still portray biases, half-truths and half-stories to our audience because maybe we simply don’t know more. (See: The Danger of a Single Story)
I can go ahead and accuse myself of some terrible past blog posts, articles and photos shared. I’m in a continual state of learning myself to understand how to better portray my daily life, experiences and passions without making over generalizations, assumptions or stereotypes about someone else’s life. It’s not always easy to do in a single photo or sentence. Especially with places as complex as an entire continent with 54 countries present known as Africa. Nor is it easy in a country as diverse as Malawi.
The problem sometimes of speaking about Africa itself is we tend to generalize an entire continent (of which Malawi is one country) of thousands of languages and religious beliefs and cultures into one homogenous place. I haven’t explored as much of the continent as I would like but I learned very quickly when first arriving in Malawi that it was somehow similar and yet somehow drastically different from the country I had previously visited (Kenya). And the difference was felt almost immediately upon landing at the airport.
I understand why we say Africa. There does seem to be a type of heartbeat, song, vibrancy that connects across the continent. Yes, you will find similarities across this continent in the same way you will find similarities across North America, South America, Asia and Europe. And yet you will find just as many if not more differences across Africa but somehow it gets generalized more. I’m not saying we cannot talk about the African continent as Africa. After all, we have the African Union, African Development Bank, and many other cross-continental institutions that bring the continent together and speak about it as a whole. But that’s part of the point. Unless we are speaking about the continent as a whole, recognizing that when we do use the word Africa we are talking about over 50 different autonomous nations, we need to be more sensitive to the individual country with it’s own economy, history, political system and cultures. So what is Africa? It's vast and wide from Morocco, Egypt, Libya and Algeria to Tanzania, Zambia, Kenya and Botswana and all are just as much "African."
So we will continue to try and use our language better. Are we talking about specific countries or a network across a continent in our descriptions? And once we are within a single country, are we giving a full or half sided view to it's complexity? And maybe we do need to focus on problems sometimes to solve them- but let's acknowledge we are only looking at one angle. By being more specific, we will help avoid placing negative stereotypes upon an entire continent full of around 1.2 billion different people and it's individual countries. "Poor kids in Africa" is far too general a statement and does not adequately answer the question of, "What is Africa?" Instead it leads to stereotypes that an entire continent (or country) is poor, full of orphans, unable to care for itself. This is not true. I also understand the diversity of the continent itself might lead to people loving it as a whole. The range of languages, culture, color and history could also draw someone to be interested in all the different countries as one continent. It’s not about abandoning the word Africa but by understanding more and being more aware of what we mean when we say it. To not generalize poverty to a land mass three times the size of the USA. To really get to the heart of the question of, "What is Africa?" It can never be just one thing. And maybe the meaning changes over time. As Professor Mpalive-Hangson Msiska so eloquently put it, "meaning is not static." What we know as Africa today or Malawi today may not be the meaning we should attach to them in the future.
When we look to professional journalism, one would think the points listed above about avoiding over-generalizations would be well-known, studied and understood. And yet maybe as an outsider (including myself) we can never quite fully understand and therefore, we make mistakes. We generalize, misunderstand, misquote, misinterpret and sometimes insert desperately incorrect or racist assumptions into our reporting. We exaggerate in order to raise awareness about what may indeed be a problem but does the exaggeration actually help or hurt the situation? So here’s just a few examples of when the African and specifically Malawian narrative were not well written. That fell into stereotypes of what we many times associate Africa to be.
1.
Context: Recently an article was published by Western media discussing the use of child labor in tobacco fields in Malawi. Article
Issues: Large red letters (dramatic); Dirty, downcast, disheveled child featured at the beginning of the article (stereotypical portrayal of poverty); "Dreams of escape" insinuating this is what the child in the photo is thinking and begs the question: What do they want to escape? Being Malawian? Being poor? Escape to where? America? The UK? The idea Malawian children need help from the West to escape their current country and culture and family and situation?
The article sets a stereotypical tone of poor Malawian children living in poverty dreaming of escaping to something we don't quite know. Instead why not make the title something along the lines of "Dreaming of a new Malawi future" with a more hopeful picture. While the article expands on the dangers of child labor (and yes it is dangerous and undesirable but also complicated) the portrayal of the point is not one of hope nor beauty of the potential Malawi has to offer it's people.
Note: The rest of the article is actually quite interesting as it tracks the supply chain and distribution of Malawi tobacco across the globe. It's unfortunate this was the opening scene.
2.
Context: BBC Focus on Africa held an interview with a European man to discuss some civil disturbance in Malawi caused by rumors of bloodsucking.
Issues: A white European man is being asked about issues in a rural district of Malawi. He self admitted he had not actually been to Malawi or seen what was going on but he had been to Mozambique before during a "similar" situation. These are different countries with some shared history yet very different paths. Where are all the brilliant Malawians that could have been used for this interview? For this story there was no discussion bringing in local knowledge, background or history. No attempt to understand the cultural, historical and political implications or breakdown the meaning behind the words. Is a bloodsucker a vampire (aka Dracula)? The answer in Malawi is no but did we attempt to dissect these technicalities? Not really. Also the headlines used portray stereotypes of the African continent. Malawi is known as one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Did anyone wonder how one of the most peaceful countries in the world is now full of violence? No, there was no true analysis done or background given.
Issues: A white European man is being asked about issues in a rural district of Malawi. He self admitted he had not actually been to Malawi or seen what was going on but he had been to Mozambique before during a "similar" situation. These are different countries with some shared history yet very different paths. Where are all the brilliant Malawians that could have been used for this interview? For this story there was no discussion bringing in local knowledge, background or history. No attempt to understand the cultural, historical and political implications or breakdown the meaning behind the words. Is a bloodsucker a vampire (aka Dracula)? The answer in Malawi is no but did we attempt to dissect these technicalities? Not really. Also the headlines used portray stereotypes of the African continent. Malawi is known as one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Did anyone wonder how one of the most peaceful countries in the world is now full of violence? No, there was no true analysis done or background given.
3.
Context: BBC published an investigative article and video regarding cultural practices in Malawi and centered their story around one man from Nsanje, Malawi named Aniva. Article
Issues: The article consistently talks about Aniva sleeping with young girls as the title is "The Man Hired to Have Sex with Children." The article expands to talk about initiation ceremonies. But during the video itself, Aniva talks about "kulowa kufa" which is a different cultural practice than sleeping with young girls during or after initiation ceremonies (chinamwali or kusasa fumbi). The cultural practice that is recorded is not the one that is used in the description. Whether it’s the fault of bad video editing to mismatch the written description or a complete misunderstanding of the entire interview in general, it’s quite a mess. Secondly, the moral superiority that is brought with the reporting exposes the still strongly held beliefs the West has about. . . “Africa.” That the West is here to expose the dirty, filthy, vile parts of a dark continent it needs to save. Notice the words: "Shack," "Grimy." We aren't told the educational status of this man. Nor how he was selected for the interview or if he was compensated. Nor do we truly understand if the man knows what the implications of this interview are or what it will be used for. It's implied the man is "vague about his precise age" which to me exhibits the complete lack of understanding by the journalist and lack of any true relationship with the subject at hand. This phenomenon of not knowing ones exact age is all too common among adults in rural Malawi and it is no way indicative of being secretive or not forthcoming. It is also later remarked that "[Aniva] seems to like the idea of media attention." Again, there is no context here nor understanding. Malawi, known as the Warm Heart of Africa, is given that name due to (on the whole) the extreme hospitality of its people and their eagerness to know and welcome outsiders. Alongside that, there is the sad notion that outsiders from the West are many times seen as the authority, having the right answers, to be respected and not sent away. Which leads to another huge issue. The writer notes that Aniva senses he is not impressed and then starts to change his story. The moral superiority presented by the Western journalist is nauseating. When this article broke I had a colleague who wrote an interesting little proverb: "we were eating dogs. we are not eating dogs. white man shouts "you are eating dogs. . . it is bad to eat dogs" and we say "yes we truly are still eating dogs. . it is bad to eat dogs. We should stop dogs." Basically, Malawi had already realized there were cultural practices that were detrimental to young girls and boys and had taken steps towards reform and was working on the issue before the West ever said a thing and yet they still wobbled under the weight of the Western pressure. There is no true moral superiority in this journalism but only half-understandings presented to the world in the most terrible light; presented with the prevailing stereotypes that the West knows best and Africa is backwards. To take advantage of hospitality and possible lack of understanding to write a sensationalist piece.
Issues: The article consistently talks about Aniva sleeping with young girls as the title is "The Man Hired to Have Sex with Children." The article expands to talk about initiation ceremonies. But during the video itself, Aniva talks about "kulowa kufa" which is a different cultural practice than sleeping with young girls during or after initiation ceremonies (chinamwali or kusasa fumbi). The cultural practice that is recorded is not the one that is used in the description. Whether it’s the fault of bad video editing to mismatch the written description or a complete misunderstanding of the entire interview in general, it’s quite a mess. Secondly, the moral superiority that is brought with the reporting exposes the still strongly held beliefs the West has about. . . “Africa.” That the West is here to expose the dirty, filthy, vile parts of a dark continent it needs to save. Notice the words: "Shack," "Grimy." We aren't told the educational status of this man. Nor how he was selected for the interview or if he was compensated. Nor do we truly understand if the man knows what the implications of this interview are or what it will be used for. It's implied the man is "vague about his precise age" which to me exhibits the complete lack of understanding by the journalist and lack of any true relationship with the subject at hand. This phenomenon of not knowing ones exact age is all too common among adults in rural Malawi and it is no way indicative of being secretive or not forthcoming. It is also later remarked that "[Aniva] seems to like the idea of media attention." Again, there is no context here nor understanding. Malawi, known as the Warm Heart of Africa, is given that name due to (on the whole) the extreme hospitality of its people and their eagerness to know and welcome outsiders. Alongside that, there is the sad notion that outsiders from the West are many times seen as the authority, having the right answers, to be respected and not sent away. Which leads to another huge issue. The writer notes that Aniva senses he is not impressed and then starts to change his story. The moral superiority presented by the Western journalist is nauseating. When this article broke I had a colleague who wrote an interesting little proverb: "we were eating dogs. we are not eating dogs. white man shouts "you are eating dogs. . . it is bad to eat dogs" and we say "yes we truly are still eating dogs. . it is bad to eat dogs. We should stop dogs." Basically, Malawi had already realized there were cultural practices that were detrimental to young girls and boys and had taken steps towards reform and was working on the issue before the West ever said a thing and yet they still wobbled under the weight of the Western pressure. There is no true moral superiority in this journalism but only half-understandings presented to the world in the most terrible light; presented with the prevailing stereotypes that the West knows best and Africa is backwards. To take advantage of hospitality and possible lack of understanding to write a sensationalist piece.
Comments
Post a Comment